kilobug wrote:If someone cares about my opinion, it is : just don't waste resources on the look of armors. I'm all fine if it's not shown at all, or just one model with armors. Resources are much better used in hundreds of other places in a game.

The odd thing in WL2 is that the graphics for the armor already existed. They developed them early on during the Beta, but then converted them into cosmetic clothing items, which you could randomly find as you played the game.

It makes me wonder why they didn't just relink the cosmetic items back to the armor items, at least as an option for the folks who really wanted it.

EDIT - Granted, there may have been a few gaps here and there, but the bulk of the graphical work already looked like it was done.

SagaDC wrote:The odd thing in WL2 is that the graphics for the armor already existed. They developed them early on during the Beta, but then converted them into cosmetic clothing items, which you could randomly find as you played the game.

It makes me wonder why they didn't just relink the cosmetic items back to the armor items, at least as an option for the folks who really wanted it.

I get the impression that they just didn't think it was important enough to budget the man-hours to make it an option, they wanted to just go with one or the other, and there was a big enough stink raised over "my custom Rangers" that they picked cosmetic choice over forced looks. (The right choice between the two imo, but ... my plan is still smarter and should work for both groups )

kilobug wrote:If someone cares about my opinion, it is : just don't waste resources on the look of armors. I'm all fine if it's not shown at all, or just one model with armors. Resources are much better used in hundreds of other places in a game.

One model is fine, I suppose; if it's one machine, or generally close variants that wouldn't warrant a different appearance.

The only thing Bethesda seemed to get right in FO4, was the visual appearance and design of the power armor ; and it's how it should have been done in FO3.

___
I am not a fan of a game giving the ability to wear a thing for tangible benefit while not showing evidence of it ~whether or not the player likes this... IE. that's part of the cost of wearing it. It's ridiculous to depict a party of adventurers who are wearing bullet proof armor ~and not getting punctured by bullets because of them... while visually appearing in swim suits and no helmets. If they want the bullet proofing, they should [have to] endure the appearance of the armor.

*A better example of this can be made with a fantasy setting, Where an excessively silly looking wizard's robe greatly imbues the magician with significant additional power. So much so that it's worth tolerating the absurd appearance of it, in order to have the [tangible benefit of that] extra power. Being able to turn off the silly appearance ~while keeping that added power seems a kind of cheating to me, and certainly defeats the point of the intentionally silly appearance of the robe ~meant to be obvious, and unmissable. A cost to be paid in exchange for the benefit.

Helmets in Baldur's Gate prevented critical hits... So [hypothetically] if WL3 or another game did it that way... why should they allow the helmets to be invisible, and yet allow the player to keep the benefit of wearing them [invisibly]? Imagine a Conan style fighter who finds that a certain wizard's cap makes him blade-proof ~outright...It's amazing thing, and he wears it; but it's fashioned to like a feathered chamber pot with an ornamental donkey head on the brim... looks ridiculous, and makes problems in conversation with strangers... but he's blade-proof while wearing it. If this were in a game, and the player could just turn off the appearance and display of the potty helmet ~that's an exploit giving the free power of it without the intended [social] cost associated with it.

As an aside: A third example is a bit different, and is not so much about appearance... Power suits like the ones seen in Fallout (all of the series games) are bulky and should prevent the wearer from free movement in tightly confined spaces... (People not clad in a power suit should have a noticeable mobility advantage in a enclosed/cramped terrain). No one should be able to climb down a manhole wearing one of those suits, or walk up rickety attic steps in a burned out building wearing that kind of hardware. Mechanically there is potential there for map locations where PA suits are impractical (and/or impossible) to wear into them... Like isolated sections of certain sewers, or an area of terracotta roof tops, or a 20" wide alley way between buildings.

If the player's party were exploring the [fragile] rooftops while wearing bulky invisible power armor, that would seem to me to be not unlike allowing them to be in an invisible armored troop carrier for the same reason as the not showing the helmets; carrying them on the roof across those terracotta tiles, small arms-proof due to the several thousand pounds of invisible steel plate armor.

**Before thoughts about realism vs. playability trade-offs with the armor restrictions, consider the faction armors in New Vegas, and that the player cannot wear certain ones in certain places (and travel un-accosted). An hypothetical underground sewer map could be [practically] off limits to a bulky PA suit. [Of course depending on the inventory design... If the PC's can fit them in their pockets before climbing down, that could be a problem keeping the suits out.]

Gizmo wrote:I am not a fan of a game giving the ability to wear a thing for tangible benefit while not showing evidence of it ~whether or not the player likes this... IE. that's part of the cost of wearing it.

You've argued this before, and it's a valid argument - provided one thing. The proviso is that the devs/designers/artists intend for a piece to be ugly or unattractive. I.e. they say during development, "We'll make Helmet 1 look cool with an armor rating of 50, and Helmet 2 will look stupid with an armor rating of 75; that's the trade-off".

If there is no developer intention for the player to be forced to look at a piece in order to enjoy its benefits, then there is no valid reason to insist that a piece's looks must be part of the "cost" of wearing it.

It's perfectly valid for any game to allow a "helmets not displayed" (or full on "armor not displayed") option, as it is an intended part of the design.

It would be informative if you could name a game in which the artists intentionally made their work look bad, intentionally to make the player dislike it, as part of the intended "cost" of superior stats.

Zombra wrote:You've argued this before, and it's a valid argument - provided one thing. The proviso is that the devs/designers/artists intend for a piece to be ugly or unattractive. I.e. they say during development, "We'll make Helmet 1 look cool with an armor rating of 50, and Helmet 2 will look stupid with an armor rating of 75; that's the trade-off".

That is equally valid argument, but I don't agree that it has to be either or both; but either is possible.

If there is no developer intention for the player to be forced to look at a piece in order to enjoy its benefits, then there is no valid reason to insist that a piece's looks must be part of the "cost" of wearing it.

It's perfectly valid for any game to allow a "helmets not displayed" (or full on "armor not displayed") option, as it is an intended part of the design.

I disagree. If a PC is getting head shot protection (or any benefit) from a helmet, then I don't agree that the helmet should be allowed to be invisible ~unless it's a magical invisible helmet or some kind of personal forcefield generator (which sound especially expensive); for not the least reason that it's an inaccurate depiction of the scene, but that alone stands, even when the helmet is purely decorative.

Aside: Helmets obscure some amount of vision, and wearing one is obvious to others. I'm guessing that you would indeed approve and accept any impairment of the PC, and any forewarning given to NPCs that your PC is armored ~even though it's not shown, but it's still bad form to allow that IMO; even if in multiplayer, that other players would see the armor.

It would be informative if you could name a game in which the artists intentionally made their work look bad, intentionally to make the player dislike it, as part of the intended "cost" of superior stats.

It would be news to me if there are any examples of this. It was illustrative, not an unsourced attempt at gaining credibility because others did it; (which doesn't actually work does it?).

Zombra wrote:You've argued this before, and it's a valid argument - provided one thing. The proviso is that the devs/designers/artists intend for a piece to be ugly or unattractive. I.e. they say during development, "We'll make Helmet 1 look cool with an armor rating of 50, and Helmet 2 will look stupid with an armor rating of 75; that's the trade-off".

That is equally valid argument, but I don't agree that it has to be either or both; but either is possible.

If there is no developer intention for the player to be forced to look at a piece in order to enjoy its benefits, then there is no valid reason to insist that a piece's looks must be part of the "cost" of wearing it.

It's perfectly valid for any game to allow a "helmets not displayed" (or full on "armor not displayed") option, as it is an intended part of the design.

I disagree. If a PC is getting head shot protection (or any benefit) from a helmet, then I don't agree that the helmet should be allowed to be invisible ~unless it's a magical invisible helmet or some kind of personal forcefield generator (which sounds especially expensive); for not the least reason that it's an inaccurate depiction of the scene, but that alone stands, even when the helmet is purely decorative.

Aside: Helmets obscure some amount of vision, and wearing one is obvious to others. I'm guessing that you would indeed approve and accept any impairment of the PC, and any forewarning given to NPCs that your PC is armored ~even though it's not shown, but it's still bad form to allow that IMO; even if in multiplayer, that other players would see the armor.

**I bet you can guess that I have a peeve about shooters with guns left drawn while in conversation, and pointed at the NPC's face.

It would be informative if you could name a game in which the artists intentionally made their work look bad, intentionally to make the player dislike it, as part of the intended "cost" of superior stats.

It would be news to me if there are any examples of this. It was illustrative, not an unsourced attempt at gaining credibility because others did it; (which doesn't actually work does it?).

Zombra wrote:You've argued this before, and it's a valid argument - provided one thing. The proviso is that the devs/designers/artists intend for a piece to be ugly or unattractive. I.e. they say during development, "We'll make Helmet 1 look cool with an armor rating of 50, and Helmet 2 will look stupid with an armor rating of 75; that's the trade-off".

That is equally valid argument, but I don't agree that it has to be either or both; but either is possible.

So you're saying that even when it is not intended as a trade-off by the devs, it "should" still be a trade-off, because ... why? Because you want it that way? Why is your opinion more important than that of the developers?

Gizmo wrote:If a PC is getting head shot protection (or any benefit) from a helmet, then I don't agree that the helmet should be allowed to be invisible ~unless it's a magical invisible helmet or some kind of personal forcefield generator (which sounds especially expensive); for not the least reason that it's an inaccurate depiction of the scene, but that alone stands, even when the helmet is purely decorative.

Accurate depiction of what scene? The scene in which a guy can take 3 headshots from a rifle but not 4? Or the one in which he can take 6 headshots but not 7? We're talking about RPGs here, in which the rules are arbitrary. Let me say that again. In an RPG, the rules are arbitrary. A helmet that gives -2 to PER and +5 AC may work just as well (or badly) if you are carrying it in your magical helmet pocket. There is no "accurate" or "inaccurate" depiction - what you see is what you get, always.

Zombra wrote:So you're saying that even when it is not intended as a trade-off by the devs, it "should" still be a trade-off, because ... why? Because you want it that way? Why is your opinion more important than that of the developers?

I don't think the devs did intend any tradeoffs. That was also more illustrative than a suggestion. In answer though ~it would only be more important in my own projects... This is their project, and they will design it however they choose ~no? But I can certainly disagree with bad form (when I think it is that).

Accurate depiction of what scene? The scene in which a guy can take 3 headshots from a rifle but not 4? Or the one in which he can take 6 headshots but not 7? We're talking about RPGs here, in which the rules are arbitrary. Let me say that again. In an RPG, the rules are arbitrary. A helmet that gives -2 to PER and +5 AC may work just as well (or badly) if you are carrying it in your magical helmet pocket. There is no "accurate" or "inaccurate" depiction - what you see is what you get, always.

No, not that. It's an inaccurate depiction of the scene when the PC is wearing armor that isn't shown; (exempting very abstract games with strict or crude graphical limitations). Screenshots (only for instance) would show them not wearing any armor ~and yet that would be inaccurate.

Gizmo wrote:I don't think the devs did intend any tradeoffs. That was also more illustrative than a suggestion. In answer though ~it would only be more important in my own projects... This is their project, and they will design it however they choose ~no? But I can certainly disagree with bad form (when I think it is that).

Fair enough. My opinion is that realism is a good thing - when it doesn't interfere with more important concerns. It's more important to me to tell my Rangers apart and give them some personality than it is to realistically depict a squad of Space Marines in their identical Power Armor. "Bad form" (and this whole conversation) is, we agree, a matter of taste. But sometimes the audience wants to see the lead actor's handsome face, even if it would be more realistic (and safer!) for him to keep his damn gas mask on for the whole movie.

In any case, the idea I posted in "Thoughts on Inventory" should solve the problem for both of us, and sear appears to have read it, so with a bit of luck we can all get what we want for Wasteland 3.

Gizmo wrote:If a PC is getting head shot protection (or any benefit) from a helmet, then I don't agree that the helmet should be allowed to be invisible ~unless it's a magical invisible helmet or some kind of personal forcefield generator (which sound especially expensive); for not the least reason that it's an inaccurate depiction of the scene, but that alone stands, even when the helmet is purely decorative.

This came about as players were given increased ability to customize how their character looks. While body type is generally pretty basic, the face and hair has a lot of options. Players got annoyed spending thirty minutes getting the face just right only for it to be obscured for the entire game 5 minutes in.

Plenty of games, like Torchlight, just made it a toggle. And frankly, I'm fine with that. I'm not going to force my preference on other people over something so minor.

Agree with the OP. I absolutely want to see visual changes in the character when he/she equips power armor. That's one thing missing from WL2. Maybe it's asking too much to make it like the XCOM series (customize them so that each character will look armored and yet retain their individual personality - the colors, the head, the ornamentation - maybe even have some characters wear pins and stickers on top of it - how cool is that?!), so just make it like Fallout - where all armored characters look the same. I'm sure by the point where you get that armor you'll have had more than enough time to enjoy the looks of your customized character.

Stuurminator wrote:Back during Wasteland 2's development, there was a lot of talk on the forums regarding whether armour should be shown on the character's model or not. You can actually see this feature in the very, very early promotional material for Wasteland 2, but they later removed it, making armour invisible. I suppose it was inevitable that this subject would come up again for Wasteland 3.

Allow me to get in on the ground floor with my preference that armour not be visible in Wasteland 3. There are two reasons for this: first, when I create a character, I put a fair bit of work into making them look right, and I don't want that invalidated when I start putting on armour; and second, visible armour means your entire team ends up looking indistinguishable from each other.

Now, if this were some sort of toggled feature, then everyone could be happy. But if I had to choose one or the other - visible armour versus invisible armour - I'd prefer the latter.

I would prefer visible armor myself but as you've said a toggle is what makes the most sense.

Stuurminator wrote:
Now, if this were some sort of toggled feature, then everyone could be happy. But if I had to choose one or the other - visible armour versus invisible armour - I'd prefer the latter.

This would never work, as just the presence of the option is the very problem to some. A toggle like that is not only a bit like having the cake and eating it too, it's like opting for hot peppers on top, but with optional heat.

Lots of recurring points in this thread, so I'll add a more alternative one. Try imagining the video game as no more than a medium for a story to be told.
As Mad Max: Fury Road was a visual retelling of in-universe events recorded after the fall of Immortan Joe, Wasteland 3 will be an interactive recount of the Desert Rangers' foray into the frozen wasteland of Colorado.

Personally, when I'm following a story, I don't like details (that might be crucial to deciding the fate of a protagonist, wink wink) to be left out, especially for the sake of some vanity. That's how we get plot holes. Granted, in Wasteland's case we'd be aware of the devices of said plot hole, but then by toggling your armor off you're making your experience artificially shallow.

With regards to squad monotony, I'm not sure how much of a problem that'll really be. It'll be quite a while before everyone's decked out in not-T-51b, and even then you'll have your visible equipment (stretch goal #1) to make your Rangers easily distinguishable.

Oh and yeah, it's gonna get cold. I have a feeling we're not going to see copious amounts of revealing apparel.

A good compromise might be the ability to take off your helmet in-between battles. Mechanically, as in, your select Ranger does it themselves.

Bulo wrote:A good compromise might be the ability to take off your helmet in-between battles. Mechanically, as in, your select Ranger does it themselves.

This could be good; but no helmet should also mean no head-shot protection. (Of course, presumably they would slip it back on in a fight.)

Yeah, that'd be the idea. I think there was a feature in the Mass Effect games where you could toggle your helmet off whenever you entered a dialogue with an NPC or in a cutscene. That might be more convenient.

EDIT: Actually, I just realised that we probably won't see our Rangers' faces in dialogue anyway. So being able to take it off between combat is probably the best idea.

if armour changes characters visually, it should be minor
like a bulletproof vest would go under the clothing, metal armour could go over, or like over the shirt under the trenchcoat, so power armour would go over everything

but then in the Ghost novels they had the Pseudo-Chitin Armor on as a bodyglove underneath their clothes so what do I know
all I know is that if I don't like the armour, I'll choose the "badass, aesthetically pleasing" over the superior choice
who knows, I might actually end up with a better character, picking light and medium barely visible over ugly, obvious heavy armour

also you only see the enemy's face, not your own, why bother taking off the helmet
and if we're bothering with that, why not take it a step further? edit armour to have different colours or a ranger star insignia on it to show what faction you belong to

and there's this idea Ive had for years where armour you loot could have an "unfitted" trait, which will lower the armour bonus and you can nullify it by taking it to an armourer or something
you know, perfect for a medieval game, just saying

Fallout tactics BoS had some sick power armour, and i got excited to put it on and change round the armour of the squad, if you dont want to change the look of your ranger...well why should gun skins change? I dont get it

If its about stuff not matching

Maybe make spray cans available to change the colour of ur armor even?!

I'd just be happy if they address the clipping issue of the stuff your ranger puts on. Almost every single piece of clothing in WL2 DC clipped through on the arms and under arms, some WAY more than others and even some of the pants. I was already disappointed in the lack of portraits and over all start of game customization, only to be even more disappointed that outfits I found later on were totally unusable due to the clipping issue.